“Congress’s Inaction Could Be Legal Basis for Stronger Executive War Powers”: Charlie Savage will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Alabama judge urged to resign over domestic violence incident”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

“Barry Bonds’ conviction seems to trouble appeals court”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Barry Bonds’ conviction draws dubious reaction from appeals court.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “Barry Bonds case: Conviction reversal seems likely.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Government Slammed at Bonds Obstruction Hearing.”

You can view the video of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit oral argument in United States v. Barry Bonds via this link.

“Death row inmates contest Tenn. electric chair law”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Scalia’s Liberal Streak: The conservative justice’s most brilliant — and surprisingly progressive — moments on the bench.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A choice of evils: Should democracies use torture to protect against terrorism?” Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“Court permits Taylor to withdraw from Senate race; Roberts, Orman left to fight through 2014 campaign”: Tim Carpenter of The Topeka Capital-Journal has this news update.

The Kansas City Star has a news update headlined “Kansas court scrubs Democrat Chad Taylor from ballot for U.S. Senate.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas at this link.

“A Conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer”: Yale University has posted the video of today’s event online at YouTube, and you can access it via this link.

Hey Fifth Circuit — Don’t ever change: Last night I had this post in which I had a little fun with the Fifth Circuit’s newly announced “no change” policy for cash payments.

Today, I received an email from Lyle W. Cayce, the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding that new policy. He has given me permission to republish his email here:

I noted your comment regarding our change in policy on your blog yesterday. I don’t think our posted announcement explained adequately why we made the change, so I have updated that announcement. As your blog entry prompted me to update the announcement, I wanted to personally provide you some additional information regarding the change.

To begin, we are one of the few appellate courts that actually still makes change for cash customers. Making change requires us to maintain a special Imprest Fund, and to designate cashiers and back up cashiers for the fund. We have to make monthly audits and reports regarding this fund, and internal controls intended to reduce the risk of loss or theft require me to designate different employees to receive, receipt, store, issue, and account for the funds. At one time, the fund was quite large and useful, as most of our transactions were cash transactions. But in recent years, we have ever fewer cash customers. Today we rarely get cash over the counter, and even more rarely are asked to provide change. In fact, my cashiers recall only two occasions in the past year when our office had to make change for over the counter cash customers. All of this is likely due to our changing economy and the proliferation of other methods of payment, especially credit and debit card transactions.

As to timing and impetus for the change, however, I approved this change as a result of a recommendation from the Administrative Office of the Courts made in August. The Administrative Office recommended the Fifth Circuit Clerk’s Office end our change making service because the US Treasury Office seeks to eliminate the remaining change making funds that still exist in executive agencies and the courts. After I verified that only two customers requested change last year, I determined this would not significantly burden the public or bar. Conversely, eliminating the fund would eliminate significant administrative burdens occasioned by the existence of the fund. This is important for our office, given our recent reductions in personnel, including the loss of two financial and budget positions in my office.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. Thank you for visiting our web page and keeping current with Fifth Circuit matters.

Thank you for sharing that more detailed explanation of the thinking behind the Fifth Circuit’s forthcoming “no change” policy.

Lest anyone fear that “How Appealing” garners a great deal of behind-the-scenes comments from appellate court systems, I am pleased to report that the only appellate courts that have seen fit to comment on or offer corrections to “How Appealing” posts this week are the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court (see the update to this earlier post).

“Federal Judge Accused of Assaulting Wife Is Urged to Resign”: Alan Blinder of The New York Times has this report.

And AL.com has reports headlined “Mark Fuller attorney mum on client’s future as 4 more Congressmen call for judge’s resignation” and “Birmingham activists satisfied by congressional calls for judge’s removal after domestic violence, cancel planned Montgomery court protest.”

“Circuit court judges appear sympathetic to roadless rule challenge”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“Federal appeals judge: Argentina’s bullying a bank.” The Associated Press has this report.

Reuters reports that “Citigroup takes Argentine bond payment case to U.S. appeals court.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Citibank Tells Court Argentina Has a Gun to Its Head.”

“Lawmakers call for resignation of judge charged with domestic violence”: CBS News has this report.

Second Circuit affirms dismissal of the Republic of Iraq’s suit against numerous defendants alleged to have conspired with Saddam Hussein to corrupt and plunder the UN-administered Oil-for-Food Programme: You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

Update: In early news coverage, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Iraq loses U.S. appeal over U.N. oil-for-food program suit.”

And Courthouse News Service reports that “Iraq Oil-for-Food Case Kept Down on Appeal.”

“The Moment at Hand”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

Ninth Circuit to stream live today’s en banc oral argument in United States v. Barry Bonds: The oral argument is scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. eastern time, 2 p.m. pacific, and once underway you can view it online via this link (click play to begin).

The Ninth Circuit’s web site also helpfully provides this page linking to many of the most important filings in the appeal.

“Legal observers worry future judicial appointments will be done in secret”: Sean Fine has this front page article in today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail.

Access online the contents of the 2013-2014 Cato Supreme Court Review: Via this link.

In response to one of the essays contained therein — law professor Richard A. Epstein‘s essay titled “The Defeat of the Contraceptive Mandate in Hobby Lobby: Right Results, Wrong Reasons” — Ed Whelan has a post this morning at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog titled “Contra Richard Epstein on Hobby Lobby.”

“Trial lawyer Kline gives $50M to Drexel law school”: Chris Mondics has this front page article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And The Associated Press reports that “Trial lawyer gives $50M to Drexel law school.”

“Mixed signals on same-sex marriage”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sen. Richard Shelby call for Mark Fuller’s resignation”: AL.com has this report.

And The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “GOP senator urges Alabama judge accused of wife assault to resign.”

“New York Times reporter provides Constitutional analysis”: The Michigan Daily has an article that begins, “To honor the 227th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution’s signing, Adam Liptak, U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, spoke Wednesday afternoon about the Roberts court and the Constitution’s role in public policy today.”

“A profile in political cowardice: Republicans railroad the nomination of Debo Adegbile, and Democrats let it happen.” Columnist Errol Louis has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Daily News.

“Court upholds civil verdict against LAPD for withholding evidence”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “LA Police Liable for Withholding Evidence of Innocence.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Oklahoma asks court to dismiss lawsuit brought in wake of botched execution; Plaintiffs in lawsuit, including ACLU and The Guardian, claim bearing witness to executions is first amendment right”: The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Barry Bonds case: Court to rehear home-run king’s appeal.” Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this report.

“Effective September 24, 2014, the Clerk’s Office will no longer provide change to paying customers. Exact change will be required if you choose to pay with cash.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit posted this announcement online today.

Imagine, hypothetically, that the first customer of the day pays exact change to the Fifth Circuit’s clerk’s office for a payment due of $4.00. Assume further that the second customer of the day owes a fee of $6.00 but only has two $5 bills. Presumably in this hypothetical scenario, at least, the Fifth Circuit’s clerk’s office actually could provide change to the second customer of the day if it wanted to.

“A Conversation Between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Professor Robert A. Stein”: You can view at this link the video of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks yesterday at the University of Minnesota Law School.

“High court: Photography law is ‘unconstitutional.'” The San Antonio Express-News has this report on a ruling that the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas issued today.

According to the article, “The law had banned taking photos or videos of anyone in public without consent if they were to be used for sexual gratification.”

“Coming of Age for the Federal Circuit”: Law professor Robin Feldman will have this article in a forthcoming issue of The Green Bag.

In reports from The National Law Journal’s “Supreme Court Brief”: Marcia Coyle reports that “Orrick Hires Five Former Supreme Court Clerks” (freely access the full text via Google News) and “Professor Examines Nixon, Hoover Role in Fortas’ Fall” (freely access the full text via Google News).

And Tony Mauro has an article headlined “Arm in a Cast, Sotomayor Tours Oklahoma and Meets Tribal Leaders” (freely access the full text via Google News).

“Gucci, Tiffany dealt blow in fake goods case against China banks”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Book Review: David Lat’s Supreme Ambitions.” Steve Klepper has this post today at the “Maryland Appellate Blog.”

“Schooling the Supreme Court on Rap Music: Is it art or a true threat of violence?” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Opponents of Wisconsin voter ID law seek reversal of court’s decision”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this news update.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “Groups appeal voter ID ruling, allege ‘eleventh-hour’ changes will disenfranchise thousands.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Wisconsin Voter ID Ruling Assailed in ACLU Reversal Bid.”

I linked to the petition for rehearing en banc filed late yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in this post earlier today.